Muni Scofflaws’ Fines Would Double Under Chu Plan

Share this:

Most San Franciscans may not know that “aggressive pursuit” is “the willful, malicious or repeated following or harassment of another person,” but Supervisor Carmen Chu is well-aware. Chu knows this kind of crime goes on around Muni buses, and loitering with a concealed weapon does, too, which is why the Sunset District representative introduced legislation Tuesday that would double the fines for both.

Pursuing aggressively and loitering con weapon both carry $500 fines; Chu’s proposal would increase the fines for each to a maximum of $1,000 and/or a term of six months at one of the County Jail’s resort locations in San Bruno or at 850 Bryant Street.

“This legislation is just one component of a multifaceted approach to helping our community feel safe,” said the not-normally effusive Chu in an effusive statement released by her office.

Should Chu’s proposal become law and should a citizen wish to continue to be penalized under current statutes, he or she should stay 26 feet away from a Muni stop: any aggressive pursuit closer than that would be in the new double-fine zone.

No criminal statutes of which The Appeal is aware define “un-aggressive” or “nonviolent” pursuit, but as with anything, go large or go home.

Please make sure your comment adheres to our comment policy. If it doesn't, it may be deleted. Repeat violations may cause us to revoke your commenting privileges. No one wants that!

Akit

26 feet from a stop? Does that mean the city has to paint a yellow line around each stop? The Port of SF does it with blue lines within a foot or two of Wharf store properties to designate the line of “air” rights for signs that stick outside the buildings.

Akit

26 feet from a stop? Does that mean the city has to paint a yellow line around each stop? The Port of SF does it with blue lines within a foot or two of Wharf store properties to designate the line of “air” rights for signs that stick outside the buildings.

Wil

@Akit The city didn’t paint lines around all the ATMs when they banned panhandling within 20 feet of one, but then again I don’t know how often that law is enforced.

Wil

@Akit The city didn’t paint lines around all the ATMs when they banned panhandling within 20 feet of one, but then again I don’t know how often that law is enforced.

madenoughtocomment

The Appeal should find out how many people were actually charged with these crimes last year.

A little bit of multiplication could show the potential revenue for MUNI. If only we knew how much money was wasted increasing the fines.

madenoughtocomment

The Appeal should find out how many people were actually charged with these crimes last year.

A little bit of multiplication could show the potential revenue for MUNI. If only we knew how much money was wasted increasing the fines.

Eve Batey

Sadly, perhaps, for Muni, this isn’t like fare evasion or parking — these are criminal penalties for crimes, like the fines you’d get slapped with for other “minor” crimes. So the money doesn’t go to the SFMTA, it goes to the city.

Eve Batey

Sadly, perhaps, for Muni, this isn’t like fare evasion or parking — these are criminal penalties for crimes, like the fines you’d get slapped with for other “minor” crimes. So the money doesn’t go to the SFMTA, it goes to the city.

Josh

A grand, for a fine? That means a lot of people would end up in the jail, rather than pay because they can’t afford it. Which costs us money. Do we really want aggressive people to be doing something like project 20, where they’re out doing community service, doesn’t this present more of a danger to the community?
Having trouble making sense of this one…

Josh

A grand, for a fine? That means a lot of people would end up in the jail, rather than pay because they can’t afford it. Which costs us money. Do we really want aggressive people to be doing something like project 20, where they’re out doing community service, doesn’t this present more of a danger to the community?
Having trouble making sense of this one…